The 2013 Liberal leadership campaign ended very much on form: in a hail of tedious speeches delivered to a near comatose audience in an airless bunker several storeys under the ground.

For the most part, the speeches presented Saturday in the mausoleum-like confines of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre offered a précis of each candidate’s campaign. Justin Trudeau’s was confident, well-executed, and largely empty. Martha Hall Findlay’s was energetic, spunky and just slightly off-key. Deborah Coyne’s was substantive, serious and elicited very little response. Martin Cauchon looked about as lost as he did for most of the campaign, while Karen McCrimmon — oh God. Let’s just say that Marc Garneau wasn’t the only candidate to visit space. He was just the only one to come back.

The only real surprise of the day was Joyce Murray’s dull, listless speech. Maybe it played better on television, but in the room it fell about as flat as a speech can fall. An entertainingly combative figure at the debates, Murray was the only one of the day’s speakers to actively harm her chances, such as they are.

For of course everyone is operating on the assumption that Trudeau has this locked up. As a friend remarked, several of the candidates sounded more like they were giving concession speeches — thanks to the volunteers, reminiscences of the campaign trail — than closing arguments for their candidacies. And when they were all through, I found myself confronting a startling realization: of the six that remain, Trudeau is very likely the best candidate.

I don’t mean he should necessarily win. It depends, as leadership races often do, on what the party wants to be, and how it sees itself. But it certainly narrows the options when only two of the field, Trudeau and Hall Findlay, can deliver a speech without either putting everyone to sleep or scaring the pants off them.

(Mention was made on a couple of occasions of this being the 45th anniversary of the 1968 convention that elected Pierre Trudeau as leader, inviting comparisons the party might prefer to avoid: at that convention, the field included, in addition to Trudeau père, Paul Martin Sr., John Turner, Eric Kierans, Robert Winters, and Allan MacEachen. On the other hand, it also included Ernst Zundel, so points to 2013 there.)

If the party sees the way out of its current morass as reinventing itself as a serious party of ideas, it will choose Hall Findlay. Of the six remaining candidates, indeed, she is the only candidate one can even imagine in the prime minister’s chair. But the party has shown no evidence of any interest in reinventing itself to that degree; neither does the issue of who could serve as prime minister seem pertinent, notwithstanding some recent polls.

For that matter, while Hall Findlay has talked often of the need for boldness, for a party that takes clear, unambiguous stands on the issues of day, it would be hard to say her campaign had really been an example of it. Beyond calling for the abolition of supply management, her platform was marked more by vague nods toward a more market-oriented economic policy than real departures from the status quo. The substance of her campaign was mostly in her impressive resume, albeit much of it outside politics.

So while Trudeau was famously the least substantive of the candidates, it is not as if there was anyone on the podium who was head-and-shoulders his superior in that regard. Coyne made a passionate appeal for a more unified national approach to some major policy challenges; Murray put electoral reform, and co-operation between the opposition parties, at the centre of her campaign; Hall Findlay would most clearly target disaffected Tory voters.

All three had credible raison d’êtres to their campaigns, and will emerge from the race with their stature enhanced. But six months after the campaign began, none of them could convincingly claim their approach would deliver the party from the political wilderness, even if it were willing to follow where they led.

Whatever his deficits in message or experience, moreover, in terms of popular appeal it would be hard to argue Trudeau was not the best candidate. There’s no doubt that a lot of this has to do with his parentage and his looks, but these are real factors in politics, whether we wish it or not.

And it is not only that. Trudeau is a much improved public speaker, less given to the theatrical flourish than he was, more restrained, but with an undeniable presence. He made few errors on the campaign trail, handled himself well on the few occasions when he came under pressure, and showed a capacity to learn and grow. It is harder now to imagine him being a total embarrassment as leader, as once seemed likely.

His weaknesses remain, of course. His speech made a brave attempt to confront the issue of his lack of experience, but did not convince. His opponents will waste no time in reminding the public of some of his sillier past outbursts. And it is still unclear where he wants to take the party, on policy. If the issue were whether he were fit to be prime minister, and if the election were held today, he would be unlikely to do well.

But as the leader of the third party, in an election two years from now? If he can grow as leader half as fast as he has as a candidate, he may yet give Liberals reason to hope for better days.

A National Post original, Andrew Coyne's journalism career has also included positions with Maclean's, the Globe and Mail and the Southam newspaper chain. In addition, he has contributed to a wide range... read more of other publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Time and Saturday Night. Coyne is also a long-time member of the CBC’s popular At Issue panel on The National.View author's profile